# Possible Iran involvement in Iraq: Now what? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 31, 2007, 8:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-iran-involvement-in-iraq-now-what/390249 "2007-01-31T08:23:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2007, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-iran-involvement-in-iraq-now-what/390249/21 "2007-01-31T21:17:44Z")
You notice the Bush apologists avoid these threads. Quite honestly, I don’t know whether to be horrified or fascinated to be living through the worst presidential administration in over a century. These people aren’t just incompetent; they’re comically incompetent. If Bush actually starts a war with Iran, any member of Congress who doesn’t immediately vote for impreachment is no better than a traitor. ---
**Author:** ![Sapo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ec9cab/32.png) [@Sapo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sapo)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2007, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-iran-involvement-in-iraq-now-what/390249/22 "2007-01-31T21:37:00Z")
[QUOTE=Cervaise] [If you haven’t already read this, you must](http://www.amazon.com/American-Dynasty-Aristocracy-Fortune-Politics/dp/0670032646). [/QUOTE] Just in case my reading list is not long enough. 😉 Thanks. It has been added. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2007, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-iran-involvement-in-iraq-now-what/390249/23 "2007-01-31T23:11:09Z")
[QUOTE=spoke-] So why are we only rattling sabers at Iran? [/QUOTE] Because they’re one of the Axis of Evil, and Bush has little time left to punish them for it. ---
**Author:** ![Doctor\_Who](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ed8c4c/32.png) [@Doctor\_Who](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doctor_Who)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2007, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-iran-involvement-in-iraq-now-what/390249/24 "2007-01-31T23:15:27Z")
[QUOTE=spoke-] I hope we’re not fighting Israel’s battles for her. [/QUOTE] Why not? You’re a Doper - you should appreciate a good real-world ironic twist! ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2007, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-iran-involvement-in-iraq-now-what/390249/25 "2007-01-31T23:57:07Z")
[QUOTE=Cervaise] [If you haven’t already read this, you must](http://www.amazon.com/American-Dynasty-Aristocracy-Fortune-Politics/dp/0670032646). [/QUOTE] If you must read just one relevant book by Phillips, [this](http://www.amazon.com/American-Theocracy-Politics-Religion-21stCentury/dp/067003486X/sr=8-1/qid=1170287788/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-9788122-0265632?ie=UTF8&s=books) is a better choice. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2007, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-iran-involvement-in-iraq-now-what/390249/26 "2007-02-01T00:00:19Z")
[QUOTE=RickJay] If Bush actually starts a war with Iran, any member of Congress who doesn’t immediately vote for impreachment is no better than a traitor. [/QUOTE] Impeachment? On what grounds? Unfortunately, he could almost certainly do that without committing any **crime.** (Except that for impeachment purposes a “crime” is not defined in law but is whatever Congress says it is, i.e., a political, not a legal, decision . . . arguably . . . see [these](http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070212/holtzman) [two](http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070212/levinson) articles arguing both sides of the question.) ---
**Author:** ![vibrotronica](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/a9a28c/32.png) [@vibrotronica](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vibrotronica)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2007, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-iran-involvement-in-iraq-now-what/390249/27 "2007-02-01T01:09:02Z")
If he attacks without congressional authorization, that’s grounds for immediate impeachment and removal from office. Hell, tack on four years of wantonly voilating FISA for good measure. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2007, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-iran-involvement-in-iraq-now-what/390249/28 "2007-02-01T01:17:16Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] Impeachment? On what grounds? [/quote] If Andrew Johnson could be [impeached](http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/impeach/articles.html) because he “did attempt to bring into disgrace, ridicule, hatred, contempt and reproach the Congress of the United States, and the several branches thereof, to impair and destroy the regard and respect of all the good people of the United States for the Congress and legislative power thereof, (which all officers of the government ought inviolably to preserve and maintain,) and to excite the odium and resentment of all good people of the United States against Congress and the laws by it duly and constitutionally enacted; and in pursuance of his said design and intent, openly and publicly and before divers assemblages of citizens of the United States, convened in divers parts thereof, to meet and receive said Andrew Johnson as the Chief Magistrate of the United States, did, on the 18th day of August, in the year of our Lord 1866, and on divers other days and times, as well before as afterward, make and declare, with a loud voice certain intemperate, inflammatory, and scandalous harangues, and therein utter loud threats and bitter menaces, as well against Congress as the laws of the United States duly enacted thereby, amid the cries, jeers and laughter of the multitudes then assembled in hearing, which are set forth in the several specifications hereinafter written, in substance and effect, that it to say: (_various speech texts follow_)”, then it isn’t very hard to think of more serious charges for Bush and Cheney. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2007, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-iran-involvement-in-iraq-now-what/390249/29 "2007-02-01T03:03:25Z")
So is this what the troop buildup is really all about? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2007, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-iran-involvement-in-iraq-now-what/390249/30 "2007-02-01T03:05:27Z")
[QUOTE=spoke-] So is this what the troop buildup is really all about? [/QUOTE] How could it be? 160,000 troops can no more invade Iran than 140,000 could – especially considering **somebody** still has to take care of occupying Iraq. And Iran is four times as big. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2007, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-iran-involvement-in-iraq-now-what/390249/31 "2007-02-01T03:11:13Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] How could it be? 160,000 troops can no more invade Iran than 140,000 could… [/QUOTE] As I said earlier, I don’t expect an invasion. I’m thinking more of beefing up to discourage a counterstrike by Iran and to keep an eye on the border after a US air strike. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2007, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-iran-involvement-in-iraq-now-what/390249/32 "2007-02-01T03:20:10Z")
[QUOTE=spoke-] As I said earlier, I don’t expect an invasion. I’m thinking more of beefing up to discourage a counterstrike by Iran and to keep an eye on the border after a US air strike. [/QUOTE] Wouldn’t discourage it. The Iranians can still put more troops into that particular field than we can – and an airstrike would give them a just _casus belli_ the international community would have to recognize. In six months, we might find ourselves negotiating with Iran for the release of tens of thousands of American POWS (not hostages), and it would be the Iranians who would be negotiating from a position of both strength and right. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2007, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-iran-involvement-in-iraq-now-what/390249/33 "2007-02-01T03:58:01Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] Impeachment? On what grounds? Unfortunately, he could almost certainly do that without committing any **crime.** (Except that for impeachment purposes a “crime” is not defined in law but is whatever Congress says it is, i.e., a political, not a legal, decision . . . arguably . . . see [these](http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070212/holtzman) [two](http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070212/levinson) articles arguing both sides of the question.) [/QUOTE] In about 40-50 words, you managed to ask a question, and then answer it yourself, and provide yourself with a cite. Wow, that was something to behold. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2007, 11:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-iran-involvement-in-iraq-now-what/390249/34 "2007-02-01T11:17:45Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] Maybe that’s the war _Bush_ is planning. But Iran has an army, and is of course adjacent to Iraq. They can bring us a ground war there, even if Bush isn’t planning for one. [/QUOTE] Iran won’t do anything IMHO. They’ll milk their ‘innocent’ victim status for all it’s worth while soaring to new heights in the eyes of Muslims of all persuasions all around the world. Meanwhile their co-religionists in Iraq willl become even more hostile to the West and to the government if it confirms its puppet status by acquiesing. Internally the fundamentalist regime will be strengthened immeasurably as the people rally round the government. Maybe they’ll cut off oil but in the short term the Saudi’s will up production. And no doubt the hardliers who want to arm and support terrorists will have their hands strengthened. Remember how Iran helped us against the Taliban? Expect that not to happen again. Expect them to step up aid to them, expect them to turn a complete blind eye to heroin smuggling and arms dealing. Expects Muslim hatred and anger to reach new heights. Expect more indigenous Muslims in western europe to turn to terrorism. It’s like Bush is trying to provoke a war of civilisations. And expect Congress to roll over in the face of whatever made up or grotesquely exaggerated ‘provocation’ Bush makes up to justify the assault. Non-existent attacks on the US fleet? Iran daring to switch on its air defence radar like its some sort of sovereign nation with the right to protect its borders? Unprovable allegations of ‘involvement’ in Iraq? (which even if true is too petty to justify a war and if it was would justify most of the world declaring war on the USA). All combined with ‘they almost have nukes’ in defiance of informed opinion. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2007, 11:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-iran-involvement-in-iraq-now-what/390249/35 "2007-02-01T11:19:38Z")
[QUOTE=RickJay] You notice the Bush apologists avoid these threads. Quite honestly, I don’t know whether to be horrified or fascinated to be living through the worst presidential administration in over a century. These people aren’t just incompetent; they’re comically incompetent. If Bush actually starts a war with Iran, any member of Congress who doesn’t immediately vote for impreachment is no better than a traitor. [/QUOTE] Bush believes that he already has permission as an attack on Iran is an extension of the war in Iraq. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2007, 11:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-iran-involvement-in-iraq-now-what/390249/36 "2007-02-01T11:21:56Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] Wouldn’t discourage it. The Iranians can still put more troops into that particular field than we can – and an airstrike would give them a just _casus belli_ the international community would have to recognize. In six months, we might find ourselves negotiating with Iran for the release of tens of thousands of American POWS (not hostages), and it would be the Iranians who would be negotiating from a position of both strength and right. [/QUOTE] I don’t think Iran could stand against US air-power and they know it. They won’t attack militarily. ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2007, 11:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-iran-involvement-in-iraq-now-what/390249/37 "2007-02-01T11:46:41Z")
[QUOTE=RickJay] Quite honestly, I don’t know whether to be horrified or fascinated. [/QUOTE] Why not both? _**[CRASH!!!]**_ “Hey! You got your Horror in my Fascination!” “Well you got your Fascination in my Horror!!” \* (both taste)\* “MMMMM!!! Taste great together!!!” _[jingle]_ Bush’s Peanut-Headed Romps! ---
**Author:** ![FRDE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e68b1a/32.png) [@FRDE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FRDE)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2007, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-iran-involvement-in-iraq-now-what/390249/38 "2007-02-01T12:26:02Z")
Iran, or more specifically Iranians have been helping Shi’ites in Iraq for some time, the British moaned about it a long time ago. (A gross assertion but even so …) Personally I can’t see what else they can do, apart from turning a blind eye. The borders are porous, the same population is on both sides and realistically both Iranians and Syrians would probably prefer letting nutters into Iraq in the fervent hope that they’ll not come back. The question in my mind is, how much of this is official Iranian policy ? Both the Iranians and the Syrians should be smart enough to realize that any USA attack would be anything but ground based - they would simply devastate the infrastructure and let the place descend into the stone age. My WAG is that Bush is hoping for some sort of concession from Iran that makes him look less appallingly awful. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2007, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-iran-involvement-in-iraq-now-what/390249/39 "2007-02-01T14:02:42Z")
As the old saying goes: What’s sauce for the goose … [Cheney, Rumsfeld order, US outsourcing special ops, intelligence to Iraq terror group, intelligence officials say](http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/US_outsourcing_special_operations_intelligence_gathering_0413.html) > [@](#): > > The Pentagon is bypassing official US intelligence channels and turning to a dangerous and unruly cast of characters in order to create strife in Iran in preparation for any possible attack, former and current intelligence officials say. > > One of the operational assets being used by the Defense Department is a right-wing terrorist organization known as Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK), which is being “run” in two southern regional areas of Iran. They are Baluchistan, a Sunni stronghold, and Khuzestan, a Shia region where a series of recent attacks has left many dead and hundreds injured in the last three months. > [@](#): > > Another former intelligence official added that the US military had detained as many as 3,500 members of MEK at Iraq’s Camp Ashraf since the start of the war, including the highest level ranking MEK leaders. Ashraf is about 60 miles west of the Iranian border. > > This intelligence official, wishing to remain anonymous, confirmed the policy tensions and also described them as most departments on one side and the Pentegon on the other. > > “We disarmed [the MEK] of major weapons but not small arms. [Secretary of Defense Donald] Rumsfeld was pushing to use them as a military special ops team, but policy infighting between their camp and Condi, but she was able to fight them off for a while,” said the intelligence official. According to still another intelligence source, the policy infighting ended last year when Donald Rumsfeld, under pressure from Vice President Cheney, came up with a plan to “convert” the MEK by having them simply quit their organization. > > “These guys are nuts,” this intelligence source said. “Cambone and those guys made MEK members swear an oath to Democracy and resign from the MEK and then our guys incorporated them into their unit and trained them.” [US finds a communist ally against Iran](http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EF21Ak03.html) > [@](#): > > The United States, which used Islamic fundamentalists against communism in Afghanistan in the 1980s, has embarked on an operation to use communists to bring about the end of the Islamic regime in Iran. > > The dozens of anti-cleric and secular Iranian exile groups operating from the West against the Islamic regime in Tehran broadly fall into the following categories: > > # The left-oriented Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK - People’s Mujahideen) and elements allied with it in the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI). They mainly operate from West Europe, with headquarters in France. > > # The monarchists, mainly operating from the US, with the help of neo-conservative and Jewish lobby groups. > > # The remnants and new adherents of the old pro-Moscow Communist Party of Iran, called the Tudeh Party, and other communist factions, mainly operating from the United Kingdom. > > The MEK, which has in the past indulged in acts of terrorism inside Iran from sanctuaries provided by the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq, has been designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) under a 1996 US law. Until recently, this precluded any Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) assistance to or even contacts with it. However, it would seem that after the occupation of Iraq by the US forces, the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) have been allowed to establish contact with MEK elements in Iraq and West Europe for using them against the Teheran regime. This decision was reportedly taken to preempt any Iranian meddling in Iraq. [Fool me once …](http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GK18Ak02.html) > [@](#): > > In recent months, the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK) and its attempts to prove that the Islamic Republic of Iran intends to develop nuclear weapons garnered widespread media coverage and speculation. While bringing forth a modicum of new information, the attention fails to illuminate just how dangerous the MEK could be to the United States. > > Grappling in Iraq, the Bush administration now faces an analogous yet graver situation in the Islamic Republic. In the years leading up to the Iraq war, Ahmad Chalabi led the exiled Iraqi National Congress. In courting Bush officials like Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz to stoke the war flames in Iraq, Chalabi materialized defectors who affirmed suspicions about Saddam > > Hussein’s ethereal weapons of mass destruction. Chalabi then secured administration support by seducing it with visions of Iraqis showering American liberators with flowers and a quick handover of a well-ordered Iraq from US troops to his Free Iraqi Fighters. > > Today, Maryam Rajavi, the so-called president-elect of the MEK’s National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), conjures up the same desert visions for Iran. I guess this is another of those ‘do as I say, not as I do’ situations for the US. [Bush calling for Regime Change](http://www.ft.com/cms/s/d3a86bf0-9358-11da-a978-0000779e2340.html) > [@](#): > > A direct appeal by President George W. Bush to the Iranian people to “win your own freedom” was a barely disguised call for regime change in Iran, raising the question of whether the US will turn to covert action to support internal opposition, analysts said on Wednesday. > [@](#): > > Mr Nathan said the US and Europe had an accomplished “democracy industry” (‘clearly a meaning of the term ‘accomplished’ of which I was previously unaware.’ DA/Tagos) that was able to help countries in transition, but the US had virtually excluded the possibility of overt assistance in Iran by openly pursuing a policy that amounted to regime change. > > A government adviser, who asked not to be named, said the Bush administration was closing its policy options with Iran, partly due to what he called an intense hatred of its new president, Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad. He believed covert action was inevitable – and said it would probably be disastrous. [Some Wiki on the glorious freedom fighting - oops I mean freedom fighters - the MEK](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahadeen_al-Khalq) > [@](#): > > The PMOI has been officially designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the United States and is proscribed by the European Union (EU),. However EU-freezing of funds was lifted on December 12 2006 by the European Court of First Instance.] > > The MEK has now lost three appeals (1999, 2001 and 2003) to the US Government to be removed from the list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations, and its terrorist status was reaffirmed each time. The MEK has continued to protest worldwide against its listing, with the overt support of some US political figures. > [@](#): > > Ideologically, the MKO is difficult to describe. Originally being based on a syncretic amalgamation of Marxist and Islamic ideas, the MKO was subject to a number of rapid ideological shifts (each allegedly accompanied by severe internal purges) and has developed a strong sense of veneration for its leading couple, Masoud Rajavi and Maryam Rajavi, which some have described as a personality cult. It describes itself as a secular organization. While its leaders are Muslim, “The National Council of Resistance believes in the separation of Church and State.” > > In more recent years under the guidance of Maryam Rajavi the organisation has adopted strong feminist principles. Women have now assumed the most senior positions of responsibility within the ranks of the MKO and although women make up only a third of fighters, two-thirds of its commanders are women. Rajavi ultimately believes that women should exert hegemony and dominance over men. > [@](#): > > According to the U.S. Department of State, the philosophy of the MEK is a combination of Marxism, Nationalism and Islam. > > In May 2005, Human Rights Watch reported the PMOI were running prison camps within Iraq and were committing severe human rights violations. > > In July 2005 a delegation from a group known as Friends of a Free Iran (FOFI) visited Camp Ashraf for 5 days and interviewed 19 people. The delegation did not interview any of the individuals who originally gave testimonies to Human Rights Watch. As a result of these interviews FOFI issued a 132 page document on September 21, 2005 claiming the alleged abuses did not occur and calling for the People’s Mujahedin of Iran to be removed from the list of terrorist organisations. > > Prompted by the FOFI document Human Rights Watch re-interviewed all 12 of the original witnesses, conducting private and personal interviews lasting several hours with each of them in Germany and the Netherlands, where the witnesses now live. All of the witnesses recounted in extensive detail their experiences inside the MKO camps from the 1991-2003 period, and how MKO officials subjected them to various forms of physical and psychological abuses once they made known their wishes to leave the organization. Well they sound like the sort of reliable, friendly sort of guys you can consort with and trust to me. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2007, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-iran-involvement-in-iraq-now-what/390249/40 "2007-02-01T18:04:50Z")
[U.S. delays report on Iranian role in Iraq](http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-usiran1feb01,0,426918.story?coll=la-home-headlines) > [@](#): > > The Bush administration has postponed plans to offer public details of its charges of Iranian meddling inside Iraq amid internal divisions over the strength of the evidence, U.S. officials said. > > U.S. officials promised last week to provide evidence of Iranian activities that led President Bush to announce Jan. 10 that U.S. forces would begin taking the offensive against Iranian agents who threatened Americans. > > But some officials in Washington are concerned that some of the material may be inconclusive and that other data cannot be released without jeopardizing intelligence sources and methods. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-iran-involvement-in-iraq-now-what/390249.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-iran-involvement-in-iraq-now-what/390249.md?page=3)